HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint TB CC EVPC Study Session 2011-11-15 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 15, 2011
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD,
LARIMER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ESTES VALLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of
Estes Park on the 15th day of November, 2011.
Town Board: Mayor Pinkham, Trustees Blackhurst, Elrod, Koenig, Levine
and Miller
County Commission Commissioners Donnelly and Gaiter
Planning Commission Commissioners Fraundorf, Hull, Klink, Norris, and
Poggenpohl and Wise
Also Attending: County Manager Lancaster, County Principal Planner
Lafferty, Town Administrator Halburnt, Deputy Town
Administrator Richardson, Town Attorney White, Town Clerk
Williamson, and Director Chilcott
Absent: County Commissioner Johnson Trustee Ericson and
Planning Commissioner Tucker
Mayor Pinkham called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.
ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 2012 WORK PLAN
Director Chilcott reviewed items staff recommends the Planning Commission work on
during 2012 including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to increase opportunities for
construct, Planned Unit Development to incentivize redevelopment, Accommodations
and multi-family residential standards to revise kitchen-based density formulas to a floor
area ratio formula, and Street Design and Construction Standards - Appendix D to
include more comprehensive standards. She also discussed future needs for
inclusionary zoning as it relates to affordable housing and the barriers and incentives
within the current code and limited site disturbance on lots platted prior to 2000 to
remove exemption to site disturbance standards. Commercial/Residential interface
zoning was removed from the work plan as an action item.
The group discussed the work plan:
It was suggested inclusionary zoning should not be addressed at this time;
however, current regulations placing barriers to affordable housing should be
reviewed.
The items would be addressed in the order listed above as well as completing
the first item prior to moving on to the next.
The street design standards would be a comprehensive review to bring the
current Town standards in alignment with the County standards, which are
clearer. For example, curb and gutter is required in all locations and the new
standards would allow more flexibility on where they would be required.
Prioritization of the code amendments may be dependent on whether or not the
Comprehensive Plan is being addressed, number of development submittals in
2012, and the formation of a problem statement supported by both elected
bodies should bring forward fully vetted recommendations.
Regular study session meetings would provide a forum for reviewing items
amongst the Town Board and the Planning Commission.
Johanna Darden/Town citizen requested a clear definition of public open space in the
Estes Valley Development Code for the Estes Valley and a slightly different definition for
the property within town limits. She stated the need to address open space for long
Town Board Study Session – November 15, 2011– Page 2
term development guidance in the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested the problem
statement process should be open to the public to complete and submit to the staff.
Several members of the Board would be supportive of allowing citizens to bring forward
problem statements.
ESTES VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2012 WORK PLAN.
Over the past few years, there has been dialogue amongst community members as to
whether the vision in the 1996 adopted Comprehensive Plan is still valid for the
community; and, if so, whether it is being implemented. In 2010, a task force was
formed to review the plan, and determined it was still valid with only minor updates.
Updates to the plan would require significant staff time and financial resources;
therefore, staff would recommend addressing the Action Plan within the Comprehensive
Plan during the annual Triangle meeting. Staff also recommended focusing current
discussions on land use by preparing a long-range neighborhood plan in 2012 for a
neighborhood selected by the boards, including Hwy 7 corridor (school/fairground area),
Elm Road Industrial district and the downtown corridor. This review would identify
barriers in the current code that would limit the full redevelopment/development
potential of the area to its highest and best use, and address areas identified by the task
force that needed updating, including promote community diversity, historic
preservation, guidelines for infill development, etc. If the mini comprehensive plan
reviews are acceptable to the elected officials, staff would come back with a detailed
outline of the process.
The group discussed the Comprehensive Plan work plan:
The citizens have not provided input on whether or not the plan should be
updated. The plan needs updating and public forums to identify issues without
using a consultant. It was suggested a problem statement be developed for
review by the elected officials. A community survey could also be conducted
using community resources to provide additional public input on the plan.
The plan is not being used and there are a number of sections such as the
neighborhood sections of the plan that should be addressed.
The group consensus was to move forward with the neighborhood plan review
concept. However, it was also noted that there are several issues such as
transportation that are already being reviewed by separate groups. Prior to the
Planning Commission moving forward each issue should be reviewed to
determine its current status.
The current plan encourages urban sprawl at the request of the community at the
time for larger lots and more wildlife areas. Infill development would be the next
logical planning process.
The current plan does not address redevelopment that will most likely be the
economic driver in the next 5 years. Public input should be obtained to address
the issue. A lack of commercially zoned property should also be addressed with
redevelopment.
Permanently deeded open space has positive and negative consequences. The
land cannot be used in the future and too much open space can limit affordable
housing options.
A clear vision agreed upon by all should be developed prior to making a decision
on revising the Comprehensive Plan. A vision statement should be added to the
work plan.
Tom Gootz/Town citizen stated support for additional open space in Estes Park. He
would recommend a prioritization of open space that should be set aside and a plan for
acquiring the properties to be discussed as an action item at the next meeting. He also
suggested the Town should review current land holdings and sell lands not needed,
using the proceeds to purchase open space. Mayor Pinkham stated the Estes Valley
Land Trust prioritizes the purchase of lands for open space.
Fred Mares/Town citizen suggested the Town needs to have a larger planning
document/road map/vision for the community. He stated concern the Town continues to
Town Board Study Session – November 15, 2011– Page 3
complete projects as funds become available (grant funding opportunities) and the
projects may not make sense for the community or the vision for the Town. The Town
does not have a clear vision; therefore, he would support an update to the
Comprehensive Plan to provide a map or conceptual plan for the Town.
George Hockman/Town citizen stated support for the neighborhood comprehensive
review and support for a complete revision of the Comprehensive Plan. He commented
he was one of the community supporters of larger lots in the late 1990s and has
reconsidered that viewpoint due to the urban sprawl it has created.
GOAL SETTING/COMMUNICATION.
Planning Commissioner Klink requested the next meeting use a goal setting agenda
and be more focused.
There being no further business, Mayor Pinkham adjourned the meeting at: 4:15 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk